veneranda maro another vs arusha international conference center 2022 tzca 37 18 february 2022

veneranda maro another vs arusha international conference center 2022 tzca 37 18 february 2022

The High Court properly exercised its discretion in reducing the compensation from 120 months to 48 months' salary, as the CMA failed to consider all relevant factors, particularly the probable loss of remuneration and the appellants' ability to secure alternative employment. The law prescribes a minimum but not a maximum, and the High Court's award was justified and judicious.

Citation
veneranda maro another vs arusha international conference center 2022 tzca 37 18 february 2022
Parties
Appellant: Veneranda Maro; Appellant: Winfrida Ngasoma; Respondent: Arusha International Conference Centre
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
18 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal, Judicial Discretion in Labour Awards
Source Language
English
Labour Law Unfair Termination Compensation for Unfair Dismissal Judicial Discretion in Labour Awards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Veneranda Maro

Appellant

Winfrida Ngasoma

Appellant

Arusha International Conference Centre

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the CMA from 120 months' salary to 48 months' salary for unfair termination
  2. 2 Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in varying the CMA's award

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court properly exercised its discretion in reducing the compensation from 120 months to 48 months' salary, as the CMA failed to consider all relevant factors, particularly the probable loss of remuneration and the appellants' ability to secure alternative employment. The law prescribes a minimum but not a maximum, and the High Court's award was justified and judicious.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Compensation of 48 months' salary to each appellant for substantively unfair termination as ordered by the High Court is upheld.